In the company where I worked before, the team of specialists which handled customer dissatisfaction issues often came up with seemingly brilliant solutions which would initially appear to be key breakthroughs but would later turn out to be no more brilliant than those which had been tried and abandoned before.

Along those lines, let's suppose, someone is working on a big scientific discovery or breakthrough, it's got big hype and everything, but once it is made known to public and its applications are discussed, people notice nothing useful about it and dismiss it as nonconstructive or nonfunctional.

I am interested in knowing if there is a word or phrase to describe the idea.

It's a phrase which goes back to the 17th-18th centuries, when flintlock firearms were discharged in two stages: a small priming charge in an external “pan” was ignited by a spark from the flint, and the resultant flame was supposed to travel through the touch-hole to ignite the main charge, behind the bullet. Often, however the charge in the pan fired but failed to travel, and the result was a misfire – a “flash in the pan”.

The phrase survived long after flintlocks were superseded, and is still in use today, although declining.

A flop doesn't necessarily imply having been hyped in advance, and a movie is not a big scientific discovery, which is what the OP is asking for.
–
RegDwigнt♦Jan 18 '13 at 10:08

2

You are confusing the OP's example with the main gist in question. In case you hand't noticed all movies are hyped. If there weren't hyped, we wouldn't know about them. BTW, things that go flop, make a sound, because the hype took them so high.
–
cxx6xxcJan 18 '13 at 10:25

1

The question mentions "a much hyped discovery", "brilliant solutions", "key breakthroughs" and "big scientific discovery or breakthrough" throughout. It's not just an example. It is the very gist of the question. And no, not all movies are hyped. In fact the absence of hype is the reason behind many of the flops. Also, please do not roll back the formatting.
–
RegDwigнt♦Jan 18 '13 at 10:34

Of course, this is only if you want to be positive about the idea/work/etc, as the implication is not that the idea is bad, just that we just weren't quite ready for it. Basically, it's your fault that you weren't ready for the world changing awesomeness.

For a mini usage demo, cue the Segway.

I still think it's a dumb idea — not just because it's likely to lead to greater misspelling of segue — and would call it a fizzer. It definitely didn't live up to the hype, being an illusory "breakthrough" in personal mobility. However, Segway would say that:

It's ahead of its time

Like any invention that's ahead of its time, the Segway PT is often misunderstood. The gleeful smiles of Segway PT riders may have created an impression that it is ...well...a toy. But make no mistake. While a Segway PT is incredibly fun to ride, it is serious transportation designed for today's world.

Not only does "ahead of its time" not imply "bad"; it in fact implies "good", something that turns out as useful, valuable, appreciated, just at a later date. While the OP is expressly asking for something that implies "worthless". Fizz out, fizzle, and fizzle out have already been suggested in two other answers.
–
RegDwigнt♦Jan 18 '13 at 10:13

@RegDwight I may need to rewrite the answer to reflect it better, but I thought the segway example would be a case of something fitting the OPs description - it was hyped ahead of time as a breakthrough in personal mobility, but when revealed it fell flat. I'd use the term 'ahead of it's time' sarcastically in this case.
–
tanantishJan 18 '13 at 11:47

@RegDwighт Also, re: fizzer. Happy for that to be cut out and merged somewhere else but I wasn't sure if it's best placed next to the answer by Kris, or Prince Goulash. Suggestions?
–
tanantishJan 18 '13 at 11:51

This is a common understated 'spin' on a bad situation, so is not ostensibly equivalent to what is asked for.
–
MitchJan 18 '13 at 15:57

@Mitch Yep, I think I was having an off day, and didn't read the question (and post a sane-enough) answer. It's adding noise to the lot so I'll probably set it up for deletion in short order.
–
tanantishJan 19 '13 at 2:48

...a type of logical fallacy in which a clue is intentionally or unintentionally misleading or distracting from the actual issue. It is also a literary device employed by writers that leads readers or characters towards a false conclusion, often used in mystery or detective fiction.

I think this fits especially well because of the literary usage: when a character in a book encounters a red herring, she may have a similar experience to what you describe—initially thinking a discovery or clue is important, but later finding that it was irrelevant to the truth.

Another possibility is a wild-goose chase: "A futile search, a fruitless errand; a useless and often lengthy pursuit."

You mean all that is gold does not glitter — well, or glisten, per Shakespeare.
–
tchristJan 18 '13 at 12:02

3

@tchrist Nope...don't think he does. I've heard the former many times, the latter never. I'm guessing you're quite right about the origin, but (in my experience) it has changed. Google has about twice as many hits for "all that glitters is not gold" as well.
–
BeskaJan 18 '13 at 13:00

4

@tchrist That may be the origin of SouthpawHare's phrase; but they don't mean the same thing. His means "not everything that looks valuable is valuable", yours means "not everything that is valuable looks valuable".
–
Dan NeelyJan 18 '13 at 14:17

1

@tchrist - "all that is gold does not glitter" is a Tolkienism; it's part of the poem written by Bilbo about Aragorn.
–
Adam VJan 18 '13 at 15:27

1

Shakespeare had "All that glisters is not gold". Some editions use glisten or glitters because glister is now archaic.
–
Jon HannaJan 18 '13 at 16:04